. . . and, to my understanding, spot on.
IMHO, you are absolutely correct that, should it come to a legal
proceeding to sort things out, the court is interested in one thing over all others; i.e. the "four corners" of the written contract
. Only what is written there can form a solid foundation upon which to erect a sensible legal
In one of your posts, though, I believe it didn't come out the way you intended.
Originally Posted by Pblais
If you still hold the title it's like you are loaning the boat to the seller and you still own it even if you have a sales contract. What you want to do is encumber the title so he can't sell the boat until you send in a written notarized official satisfaction of mortgage! At that point the seller can transfer the title to another party.
Am I correct that you meant to say that if you
(meaning the seller, I believe) still hold the title, it's like you
(again, the seller) are loaning the boat to the buyer
, and you
(the seller) still own it even if you
(the seller) have a sales contract? What you want to do is encumber the title so he
(the buyer) can't sell the boat until you
(the seller) send in a written, notarized official satisfaction of mortgage! At that point the seller (you
) can transfer the title to another party.
Otherwise, it just doesn't track for me. If I have misunderstood your intent, please straighten me out. Clearly, you are an authority in this area, and I value your insight.